Each country is allocated a certain amount by the EU but it is DEFRA who allocates the funds in the UK. It was supposed to help small farmers receive a guaranteed income but it now helps the larger land owners who claim it.

If business seems brisk at Tetbury’s Close Hotel they’re almost spilling on to the pavement at the Ormond pub.
A prawn salad at the Chef’s Table brasserie might be nice, while cowboy boots and horse couture are galloping out of Overider, a friendly boutique on the corner of Church Street.

Only The Prince of Wales has a truly independent income from the Duchy of Cornwall. The Queen still receives Civil List monies for reimbursement of various expenses from Parliament, which is required as part of the precedent of relinquishing the income from the Crown Estate in return for support from Parliament.

The income from the Duchy of Lancaster is used to support other members of the royal family in their duties, again replacing Civil List support that used to be received from Parliament. The Queen's private fortune of various investments is her only truly independent income.

The Queen's private income is generated from the Duchy of Lancaster and it is from this income that she pays the rest of the family, sets up trust funds for her kids and leaves an inheritance for them as well.

What she leaves Charles will be the Duchy alone to create his own private income as King.

Over nearly 60 years the Queen has been able to develop a large personal income from the income of the Duchy, and whatever else she may have been left by her grandparents and father for instance. These days she mightn't even need the income of the Duchy but is it the basis of her fortune.

The Queen has no doubt been able to accumulate a considerable fortune since her accession in 1952 from the Duchy of Lancaster, mostly due to the fact she enjoyed tax-free status for most of her reign. In addition, the Civil List provided monies to other members of the royal family in carrying out their public duties, a practice that has now ended with the exception of The Duke of Edinburgh.

Keep in mind she came to the throne with far less money than most monarchs due to her father unexpectedly becoming King with her uncle's Abdication. George VI had to buy back Balmoral and Sandringham from The Duke in addition to paying him a considerable allowance ever year. Since The King was never Duke of Cornwall, he only had approximately 1 million pounds sterling from George V as his private money.

The Duke proved to be quite greedy in terms of money, having accumulated years of income from the Duchy of Cornwall as the heir in addition to the income from the Duchy of Lancaster for the year he reigned as King. In today's terms, he left Britain with over $30 million in capital in 1936, which was considerably more than his brother possessed.

Okay, I'm a little fuzzy on how a lot of the funding for the royal works, so if this is a totally stupid question, I apologize.

Here's how I understand it: the taxpayers fund the Civil List, which in turn funds The Queen and Prince Philip. The Queen doesn't pay any of this money back. However, the funding for other members of the family, staff, and residences comes from a parliamentary annuity, which is then replenished by The Queen through the privy purse funds from the Duchy of Lancaster.

If that's the case, why doesn't The Queen pay back the Civil List funds from the Lancaster money? Is it because these funds are supposed to cover public costs she incurs as Head of State? If so, why are the public costs that someone like, say, Prince Andrew incurs while fulfilling his officialy duties paid back, while The Queen's aren't?

The Queen recives the following money from the taxpayers in the following ways:The Civil List - paid by the UK Treasury to meet the Queen's official costs such as staff (about 300 are paid through the civil list), entertaining guests and vistors, office costs etc. Prince Philip is the only otehr member of teh royal to recieve a taxpayer funded allowance.
In addition HM then recives the following Grants in Aid for the stated reasons:Grant in Aid for Travel - to meet the costs of official travel by air and rail by ALL members of the royal family. It is paid by the Department for Transport. Grant in Aid for the Occupied Royal Palaces in England, Royal Communcation, and the Upkeep of Malborough House. - paid by the Department of Media,Culture and Sport. It pays for the upkeep of Buckingham Palace, St JAmes' Palace parts of Kensington Palace, Windosr Castle, and Frogmore House, Clarence House, Malborough House Mews, The Queen's gallery, Hampton COurt Mews as well as some buildings in Windsor Great park and Home Park. In addition there is a small allowance here to mee the costs of dealing with the media.

HM then recives the INCOME from the Duchy of Lancaster. HM does not own this but is, as Soverign, entitled to the income generated. This is used to meet other official costs not met by the above allowances as well as some of HM's private costs. HM uses this to reimburse the Treasury the Palimentary Allowances of other Members of teh Royal Family. This is carried out this way as HM recives tax deductions of the reimbursed amounts.

HM then has her own personal income and assets which are entierly seperate from any of the above and are private.

The Prince of Wales uses the INCOME from the Duchy of Cornwall to meet his costs apart from the Travel by Air and Rail which is met from the above mentioned grant in aid as is an alloance for the upkeep of Clarence House. HRH also recives a small allowance for dealinng with media matters.

Therefore most members of the royal family have all but their official travel by air and rail met through either the Duchy of Lancaster of HM's personal funds. Until the early 1990's the Queen's children and cosuins recived their Palimentary Allowances from the treasury, however after public pressure over the costs of the monarchy and HM's personal taxation and other bad press for the Royal Family it awas decide only that Prince Philip and the Queen Mother recived their allowances from the treasury. The costs met by the taxpayers money are those incurred by HM's role as HEad of the British State.

Yes, some.
------------------------------------------end of reply to Al binatommy1716 Interest from the Duchy helps to bolster HM's private income, after repayments etc. It works in the same way as the Duchy of Cornwall and if you bear in mind how much income that generates......
---------------------------------------------------

The royal family is to demand a pay rise from the taxpayer to fill a looming £40m hole in its finances.The Queen wants an extra £4m a year to pay for repairs and improvements to her homes, including Buckingham Palace, Windsor Castle and St James's Palace. Courtiers may also request an increase in civil list payments to cover rising costs of running the royal family, which hit £41.5m during the 2008-09 financial year – an increase of £1.5m

Fund the repairs- Buckingham Palace, Windsor Castle etc are not her personal property [Balmoral & Sandringham are], she merely has life use of those properties. They belong to the UK and it is up to the country to pay for the repairs much like the White House & Capitol belong to us and we have to pay for their upkeep & repair.

As for the Civil List- well apparently it hasn't been increased in almost 10 years. And apparently HM was able to make some savings on what she had received previously & put it in a "rainy day" fund that would pay her bills if they exceeded her Civil List allowance [how many government departments in any country can be said to have done that- darn few I'll wager]and that fund is now being used up rapidly if I understand the articles correctly. So some adjustment is in order.

I have to say the gall of the MPs complaining about the costs is amazing considering how much they've helped themselves to the British public's money. It isn't like HM is asking for money to buy new horses, jewels etc etc. She is asking for more money in order to pay her staff who assist her in the performance of her duty to and on behalf of the UK and the expenses that come with that performance.

As for the timing- well I doubt if there is ever truly a good time for the Queen to request more funding. She's damned if she does in many quarters regardless of whether times are good or bad.

A great deal of money is probably wasted on staff employed to manage staff who manage etc. They could cut costs a great deal if they got quotes from people rather than use the old boy network.

HM didn't save the money, the government realised they had overpaid/allowed HM and the money was then set aside for future use! You say BP, WC etc belong to the nation, they do, so perhaps HM should start to pay rent! Just look at the money wasted on improving an apartment in St James for Beatrice!
------------------------------------------------end of reply

Globetrotting Prince Charles sent the travel bill soaring with the two of the most expensive trips in the history of royal accounts.
A tour on behalf of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to the Far East last autumn cost taxpayers £694,081, including flights for staff. And his visit to South America in March racked up a bill for £698,890.

Well I do think that HM and her staff have cut costs, in the early 1990's the monarchy cost around £90million, now it is down to just over £40million so clearly cuts have been made but I’m sure more could be made. The biggest area to cut seems to be travel, it does amaze me at the difference in the costs for some trip. I mean if you look at the list of trips that cost more that £10,000 Princess Anne and the Earl and Countess of Wessex appear 2 or less times each, indeed one of those trips for Anne was £20,000 on scheduled flights to Australia after the bush fire tragedy. Yet other members appear repeatedly. I think there needs to be a change in attitude by royal staff and some royals themselves. Scheduled flights should become the norm for all but the most senior royals in most cases (i think even the PoW could use more scheduled flights or smaller aircraft) .

At the end of the day though there is only so much you can cut costs before you take away the parts that are special and meaningful about the monarchy. And £40milion isn’t that bad when you think of the costs of other heads of state I'm sure HM is comparable.

[quote=Skydragon;959821] A great deal of money is probably wasted on staff employed to manage staff who manage etc. They could cut costs a great deal if they got quotes from people rather than use the old boy network.

HM didn't save the money, the government realised they had overpaid/allowed HM and the money was then set aside for future use! You say BP, WC etc belong to the nation, they do, so perhaps HM should start to pay rent! Just look at the money wasted on improving an apartment in St James for Beatrice!
------------------------------------------------end of reply

Maybe the Government did over pay HM. However my point is she didn't waste that money, it was set aside for "future use". And the future is now because that money is being used up.

I agree that staffing is probably the best place to cut- Lord knows payroll is the most expensive cost of any profession.

I don't agree about charging HM rent for occupying those buildings. Her relatives & retired staff are another matter altogether....